I used to do it the way you're describing—a reaction roll and then an Influence roll. But when I was working on SE I had to get it clear how things were in the RAW, so I discussed it with Kromm at length. Now I both understand that it works differently, and think that it really makes more sense that it should do so.

That was my understanding of Basic pre-SE and how I'd probably run it if called upon to run GURPS right now but what I'd like is a way to get away from that. No longer having Influence Skills indirectly interface with Reaction Rolls by modifying their effects (Neutral, Good etc) but rather directly modifying the results (11, 14 etc) of a Reaction Roll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whswhs

Basically, an Influence roll represents you trying to get another person to behave in a desired way, by using a particular way of approaching them—reasoned negotiation (Diplomacy), formal politeness (Savoir-Faire), bafflegab (Fast-Talk), threats (Intimidation), whatever. If the attempt succeeds you get the desired behavior; if it fails you don't.

But what if you don't try to use any particular skill to shape their reactions? Well, the reaction roll reflects what happens when how they feel about you becomes visible. If you ask them for something—not using an Influence skill, but just making a simple request—then their reaction becomes evident at that point, and the reaction roll occurs at that point. If you don't try to interact with them, they may react anyway, especially if you have some noticeable trait that they care about; that can be represented by a spontaneous reaction roll. If that comes up positive or negative, you'll see them react. If it comes up neutral, you won't.

No objections here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whswhs

In that last case, I would have no problem with your making an Influence roll to try to get their cooperation. Basically their reaction isn't really set anyway.

This isn't really a high priority to solve in a social ruleset but I don't like this. The difference between being having to choose either an Influence Roll or a Reaction Roll and being able to do a Reaction Roll and then follow it up with an Influence Roll is significant. It seems like this would to some degree incentivize characters with noticeable traits spottable at a distance to trigger Reaction Rolls and an approach of letting the NPC react to them first and then move in to influence him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whswhs

But if they have a positive or negative reaction, especially a strong one, I'd say their reaction has already been set, not by your deliberate attempt to shape it, but by their initial impression of you. At that point, their behavior has a certain natural inertia.

This pushes the results even further to extremes. I'm not sure if neutral reactions should always be interpretted as unset reactions rather than reactions set at neutral some of the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whswhs

Look at it this way. Suppose you attempted Intimidation against a mugger, and lost the Influence roll, getting a Bad reaction. Would it be reasonable for you to get a second attempt at Intimidation? A third? Should you get to keep attempting Intimidation until it works? I would say no; the initial failure defines the encounter. But a Bad reaction that the mugger forms on their own really is no different. In either case the reaction is set.

Certainly it's a problem to let characters just keep hitting the skill button until they win. It's a challenge of any use of quick contests.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whswhs

Of course you can take an action that reframes the scene. Maybe you turn into a seven foot tall green-skinned monster and snarl at him. Maybe you draw a weapon. Maybe you say, "Come and take it," and when he does you throw him into the wall. Or maybe you invite him to join your gang and get bigger payoffs for his skills. In such cases you certainly could get a new reaction or Influence roll—by giving him something different to react to/be influenced by.

This is basically Second Reaction Rolls. However Second Reaction Rolls considers, at least as I read it, "using [an influence] skill" to be a change in approach equivalent to "offering a bribe".

Quote:

Originally Posted by whswhs

Social interaction in GURPS isn't designed to be played out "blow by blow" like physical combat. It's divided into discrete bits of dialogue, each aimed to gain some result. All the things that people say in one dialogue, all the gestures they make, and so on, contribute to a single roll. (Or to the absence of a roll—the GM can always decide that your speech was so effective that they other people just gives you what you want.)

I don't really think social interaction should be done in sentence by sentence excruciating detail. It would probably end up working worse. I do think the discrete bits of interaction should be smaller than "trying to persuade this guy to do a thing". More like "attempt one: using method a to persuade this guy to do a thing".

Quote:

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think what you're looking for is really a social engineering analog of Technical Grappling, where you try to gain control points toward the other person on an emotional level. And that could be an interesting alternative system; maybe you should try to work it out and submit it. But I don't have a problem with the RAW for the games I run.

I'm not sure. I would like to see the social interaction rules ripped apart and put together again like the Technical Grappling rules. I'm skeptical of whether emotional control points are the right direction though. Of course I'd be interested in reading someone's attempt at it.

I don't really think I'm the person to engage in core innovation of the social interaction rules either. I can patch stuff to make things more agreeable to me but I don't have either the expertise in actual social engineering (and while I certainly could track down such a person I'd rather not waste their time) or experience running heavy social games that I would want in someone doing that.